Monckton threatens to sue ABC

CLIMATE change denier Lord Christopher Monckton has described the chairman of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Maurice Newman as a “shrimp-like wet little individual” in a speech given in Melbourne.

In the outburst on 20 July, Lord Monckton said he had written to Mr Newman to demand he be allowed to respond to an episode of the ABC Radio National documentary Background Briefing, produced by Wendy Carlisle, which heavily criticised Lord Monckton.

In audio of the Melbourne speech obtained by this blog and available at the bottom of this post, Lord Monckton says:

“I have written to the chairman of the ABC who is a shrimp-like wet little individual and I have said to him, right mate, I warned you about this woman (Wendy Carlisle) orally over breakfast – I then wrote to you saying she is going about my friends pestering them and then she produces and broadcasts this garbage because you did nothing about it. Now I want the right of reply to these lies by the ABC or I will sue. So watch out ABC”

Shortly after Lord Monckton’s previous visit to Australia, Mr Newman told senior ABC staff that some were guilty of “uncritical group think” in accepting that serious climate change was being caused by humans, despite the firm evidence that this is the case.

Lord Monckton caused controversy before arriving in Australia, when it was revealed he had displayed a quote from Australia’s former climate change policy advisor Professor Ross Garnaut beside a large swastika.

The outburst was widely condemned and prompted Lord Monckton to apologise, only for him to then claim that the term “climate change denier” was a reference to Holocaust denial, which it isn’t.

Earlier this week, the House of Lords took an unprecedented step of posting an open “cease and desist“-style letter saying the Lord should stop referring to himself as a member of UK’s upper house of Parliament.

34 thoughts on “Monckton threatens to sue ABC”

The tiresome Lord Guppy and Tony Abbott should be sent to the naughty corner, and the Lord should provide the aforesaid Mr Abbott with a tablet and instruction so Mr Abbott can write down what he truly believes in. Once his vision is inscribed, Mr Abbott should refrain from flipping and flopping like a goldfish out of water.

Listen to Wendy Carlisle’s story. She caught him in several outright misrepresentations of his sources. The fact that you think Monckton “won” the debate only shows that you didn’t know the difference.

Media debates are not rational scientific debates. They are at best entertaining, and at worst reveal the politics of the topic. no -one wins media debate on the measure of science, they can only win such debates on the measure of ignorance.

I just can’t get over the fact that so many people take Monckton seriously. Over on The Australian, one commenter stated:

“I love this dude….sticking it to Climate change brigade and its dubius science. His logic and rhetoric is right on the money – no wonder the U.S. congress refused his nomination by the Republicans to debate Al Gore….it would have been akin to murder.”

Crazy. Monckton doesn’t even have a consistent argument. I have seen Monckton over the last few years alternate between three contradictory positions with regards to climate change and he and his followers are so deluded that they cannot even see it. Sometimes Monckton claims global warming isn’t happening and that the world is in fact cooling and that Arctic Sea ice is getting thicker. In a different situation, however, he will argue that the world is warming, but it is just solar cycles and the like and that humans are not responsible. On another day, he argues that humans are responsible, but there is nothing we can do about it, we’re foolish to think we’re can and anyone who tries is secretly trying to establish a communist one-world government.

Obviously, none of these views harmonise! If I was tell you that a fossil was a maximum of 10 million years old and that at the same time it was a maximum of 100 million years old, as well as arguing that the data is unclear, that the paleontologists are secretly communist spies and that anyone who gives a date for the fossil is a brainwashed Nazi, yep you’d rightly think I was off my rocker.

Yet in this very similar situation, Monckton consistently presents contradictory views. He basically just argues any old line he can think of in the hope that people wont realise he is not presenting a coherent argument.

So when someone says “His logic and rhetoric is right on the money”, I hope I’ll be forgiven for finding that hilarious!

I also second Incen’s recommendation to check out the video series about Monckton on the YouTube channel of ‘Potholer54’.

I think the ABC board should just examine Mr Monckton’s answer to the question asked by Adam Spencer – “Are you a member of the house of Lords?” and the answer to the question asked by Ben Cubby on a previous Monckton visit – “Are you a Nobel prize laureate?”

I’ll happily go on record as backing Wendy Carlisle’s excellent summary of some of the denialist nonsense in which Monckton and his ilk engage.

If Monckton wants to sue Carlisle, I’d be most pleased to be summoned as a co-defendant. Absolutely yes please! Then we can put his claims to legal scrutiny, with the best scientific evidence called for, and we have a judge rule on whether Monckton is correct or if professional physics and climatology is correct.

With a nice counter-suit, we might even empty some of Monckton coffers of his “hard”-earned wealth…

And if Newman thinks that it is “uncritical group think” to accept that serious climate change is being caused by humans, then there’s only one thing to say – “time to go, Maurie”…

@Arnie
“That Monckton decisively won the NPC debate is not seriously contended, yet you come up with this rubbish.
he won – by the length of the straight.”
Of course, Monckton will win just about every debate. He’s one of the best debaters in the world! Luckily science is not about conviction and rhetoric but about empiric evidence. The debate of science is fought out in the scientific literature. Monckton hasn’t published a single peer-reviewed study on climate because none of his arguments hold up to scrutiny.
As the reality of global climate change crashes into civilization, as predicted long ago by real scientists, Monckton will keep winning every debate he engages in. The more people are won over by his rhetoric, the worse we’re off. He wins, but we all lose.

My goodness Mr. Brown…. are you related to Humpty Dumpty or did you graduate from the Monckton debating school? Monckton denies anthropogenic climate change, abbreviated to being a climate change denier. If you don’t like that abbreviation, I think the corner is an inviting place for you to stand!

And I mean, who the blazes do you think you are pretending that policing language like this is anything other than a Pythonesque bit of silliness? Or that a common abbreviation is an inaccuracy comparable Monckton’s numerous claims about what people say that they deny saying? What planet are you from?

Sometimes I wonder at the attenuation of logic and honesty that almost invariably accompanies climate change denial. No-one can claim that there has never been natural global climate change, and no-one is suggesting that Monckton denies that climate change has occurred naturally in the geological history of the Earth. Indeed it is our study of previous natural changes that give us reason to be concerned by the unprecedented man-made emissions of CO2, a known agent of natural climate change in the glacial cycles of the recent ice age.
Geoff Brown, Lord Monckton has however, frequently argued that the kind of human induced climate change described by Al Gore in his film, “An Inconvenient Truth’ is false.
He has relentlessly attacked the body of evidence upon which AGW is based, arguing variously that there has been no change, that it has been caused by the sun, and that CO2 has too little infra-red absorbing power to raise global temperatures.
In his presentations he makes much of the ‘fact’ that Justice Michael Burton, of the British High Court found 9 ‘errors’ in Gore’s film. What Monckton fails to mention is that the judge found that the film “makes a powerful case that global warming is caused by man and that we ought to do something about it urgently”, directly contradicting Monckton’s stated ‘denialist’ position. In the course of his judgement Burton approved the film for showing to British School children, provided teachers pointed out the ‘apparent’ errors, which were at variance from the ‘scientific consensus’ which Monckton says is rubbish anyway. “We don’t do science by consensus”. Only the deluded Lord thinks we do, apparently. We do the science and then we discuss a consensus!

Subsequent peer reviewed studies have shown that Gore’s so called errors were actually just ahead of the IPCC’s 2007 AR 4 consensus which referenced no studies later than 2002.

Whilst it is amusing to watch the debate surrounding Monckton, surely the time will soon come, or it may even be here, when a case can be made for criminal procedings, such as committing a crime against humanity, to be brought against anyone who can be proven to be deliberately attempting to hinder action on climate change. There can be little doubt that unless we act, and act urgently, climate change is going to result in a considerable global loss of life.

From what I have seen of Monckton, it does seem that his position has been roundly de-bunked by professional scientists to the extent that to continue to present it can be seen as a wilful intent to hinder action on climate change and should cease immediately.

It is either that, or we can continue with the merry-go-round and ‘Mr’ Monckton can continue leading a very nice globe trotting life, funded, I assume, by others, peddling his mischief, while the fate of millions is slowly sealed.

I just wish Mockton and those like him would dress properly. I big red nose and revolving bow-tie being essential items of dress, so that the public can treat their message accordingly.

Of course, it goes without saying that if a case can be made for the likes of Monckton to investigated for committing a crime against humanity, then anyone funding him and those like him should be investigated for aiding and abetting.

In short, it really should be ‘game over’ time for Monckton and those of a similar ilk so that the debate can rise to the level it should be at.

Caught out for more lies and – as your lot would put it – too much hyperbowl!

Mel #20 says:
“surely the time will soon come, or it may even be here, when a case can be made for criminal procedings, such as committing a crime against humanity, to be brought against anyone who can be proven to be deliberately attempting to hinder action on climate change. There can be little doubt that unless we act, and act urgently, climate change is going to result in a considerable global loss of life.”

Really?

How about compulsory tattoos, badges sewn on our shirts? How about public book burning in the town square? All works by heretics like Plimer, Carter, Lindzen – all up in smoke.

The supreme irony is that a few of the regulars here delight in calling Monckton a wacko! Grab a mirror folks. This is scary stuff indeed.

No mind though, PM Abbott will, as his first act, seek to repeal this toxic tax. If, as has been threatened, Labor and the Greens block his mandate in the Senate, I expect we would see a Double Dissolution. The public would not be too happy at an Opposition denying a clear mandate [a mandate is a thing Gillard doesn’t have, by the way]. I would expect any DD would see the ALP consigned to a rugby team in the HoR.

Get used to it boys and girls. Those of us who oppose this toxic tax will eventually prevail. I know it; you know it; the polls show it!

Professor Tim Flannery, taxpayer funded alarmist, warned us 3 years ago that the dams would never fill again, our coastline would be inundated by rising sea levels and that we face a catastrophic climate future. As Climate commissioner, he’s paid handsomely to spruik these kinds of things.

Why then has Mr Flannery bought himself a waterfront property at Coba Point on the Hakesbury?

And just in case you’re not inclined to click on that link arnie, here’s a short excerpt:

“We are limited in what we can say about a pending investigation, but I can assure you that the decision had nothing to do with his scientific work, or anything relating to a five-year old journal article, as advocacy groups and the news media have incorrectly speculated . etc .”

Get that Mr “Skeptic” ?? Nothing to do with his scientific work.

Arnie, maybe you should have a word to your hero Bolt and set him straight. Then again, you probably don’t have the cojones, you big truth-seeking “skeptic” you … I mean you could even do it the easy way and post something on this blog about how wrong he is … but I’ll bet you don’t.

“Get that Mr “Skeptic” ?? Nothing to do with his scientific work.
Arnie, maybe you should have a word to your hero Bolt and set him straight. Then again, you probably don’t have the cojones, you big truth-seeking “skeptic” you … I mean you could even do it the easy way and post something on this blog about how wrong he is … but I’ll bet you don’t.”

Geez. I’m all frightened now Chris! What is it with the Left and hyperbowl?

More bad news for you guys and girls I’m afraid. With Abbott holidaying in France for a week you’d think that for Gillard it was like a Bye in football terms – 2 guaranteed points. Afraid not. In the ring by herself, it appears Julia has given herself an uppercut and damn near knocked herself out.

That’s even despite the left leaning tendencies of EM, so imagine what’s really going on! I see there support for the CO2 [you know what that is?] is still as popular as anthrax.

PS: I see that apart from John’s lukewarm effort, nobody wanted to try to defend Mr Flannery’s blatant hypocrisy. Remember, this is the same man who said ” So anyone with a coastal view from their bedroom or kitchen window is likely to lose their house as a result of that change” . In The Australian on 5 March 2010 Flannery was quoted as estimating a 60 metre sea level rise. Look it up John!

Tim is also the man who said to Andrew Denton on national TV: “Well Gaia is our earth, this extraordinary living organism of ours that we’re all part of and just breathing now, talking we are plugged into Gaia aren’t we? We are, we taking the atmosphere into our bodies, we’re changing its chemical composition and we’re exhaling it. And it’s life that makes the atmosphere what it is, that’s a very important aspect of Gaia you know. Gaia is life working as a whole to maintain the atmosphere as it is, so that life can go on. So, Gaia I think is is saying to us “it’s time you took control.”http://www.abc.net.au/tv/enoughrope/transcripts/s2369164.htm

This is our Chief Climate Change Commissioner. Some here on this blog might be happy for him to carry on like an evangelist [fitting metaphor] but those in the real world aren’t. Hockey said last week a Liberal government will close down the Department. Amen to that. We have REAL problems to worry about with GFC Mk2 without fighting battles against a mythical Gaia.

PPS: For those with a bit of aBolt fetish – I think the last time I looked he was getting 2 million hits on his blog per month – as opposed to – is or 47 or 48 here?

I posted a lengthy response yesterday to some of the posts here, none of it personally offensive, yet Mr Readfearn sees fit to censor it as it does not fit into his political paradigm.

In the context of the complaints from many sceptics about the “shutting down of debate” – code for censorship – Graham’s actions says more about his convictions and opposition to freedom of debate, than anything he can write. Come on, Graham, you still have my reply – just post it.

I don’t censor posts I don’t agree with. It’s actually very rare that I delete comments at all, except when they don’t speak to the original post in any way. Even then, I’ll let some go. If you take a look at my old blog, you’ll see that roughly half or more of the 14,000 comments (most of which were moderated by myself) are in violent disagreement with my view.

My original post has re-appeared. Though I disagree with your view on AGW I applaud your view on freedom of speech, Graham, and apologise for a rash assumption.

Chris said:
“Good lord arnie … you’ve been a *very* busy boy haven’t you. Get a life man. Stop your obsessive reading of that idiots blog and let someone else have a go.”

Oh. dear, is that your best Chris? You’re the only one left here carrying the battered flag! You must do better, son!

Who was it who said that when the when the evidence changes, I change my mind?

There’s an end game to this debate Chris! I mean whether we will gamble our economy to make some pyrrhic statement. I am supremely confident that this idiotic tax on an essential greenhouse gas will go down in history as Y2K Mk2. How about you, Sport?

If you need any clues I can steer you to Centrebet or Sportsbet which show that your team in the ratings seem to have given themselves an uppercut and a major hit to the cajones!

How you travelling now …………. Sport……..?

As they say “look at the score board Bozo”. You’re losing, we’re winning. That is – we’re winning !!

Hmmmm … let me see if I have this straight arnie (and I’m assuming we’re talking in an Australian politcal context here)

1. BOTH parties say they accept the science of Climate Change and that CO2 emissions from human activity are more than likely the cause of warming.

2. BOTH parties have committed to cutting CO2 emissions by 5% on 1990 (?) levels by 2020.

3. Economists tell us that the cheapest, most efficient, and least disruptive way to control CO2 is to put a price on carbon via a market based scheme.

4. It is also pretty certain that while the Lib/Nats will start with direct action and the ALP will start with a carbon tax, ultimately BOTH parties will transition to an ETS at some point within the next decade.

So … what exactly have you won arnie ? It isn’t quite clear to me.

Lastly, I believe it was that old lefty John Maynard Keynes who coined the phrase …

“When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?”

… but somehow I don’t think you understand what that actually means for a “skeptic” such as yourself. In fact, should it come to some conflict between what the consensus science says versus the rubbish continually spouting from your heroes Monckton, Bolt, Plimer. Carter et al, I’m absolutely certain you would jettison such good advice instantly and without equivocation.

You’d throw good old Keynes and his phrase under the nearest bus and just blithely continue on as though nothing had happened.

Arnie, a non-skeptical skeptic is the most useless and inert object in the known universe.

Here’s one of my favourite quotes from the article … “the agency placed Mr. Monnett on administrative leave for reasons having nothing to do with scientific integrity, his 2006 journal article, or issues related to permitting, as has been alleged. Any suggestions or speculation to the contrary are wrong.”

Now I need you to help me a bit here arnie; remember when someone wrote this a couple of posts ago:

” … when the evidence changes, I change my mind?”

Have you changed your mind yet arnie ?

I mean, is Bolt a reliable source for authoritative opinion on AGW or is he so hopelessly compromised by his political leanings that a real skeptic (not a fake one like you arnie) would immediately want to check the facts before quoting anything he says.